Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

anandtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 277 posts

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#21

Post by XMPPwocky »

XMPPwocky wrote: post #18
clarry wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe Intel processors can't boost all cores. And that's exactly what shereadsthenews's point is. They can't boost all cores, and they are not boosting any core beyond the all-core capacity if it's truly a CPU that runs at 5 GHz all the time.

Turbo Boost can certainly apply to all cores- the limits you hit are TDP and time based, there, not strictly thermal. So, for example, my old laptop CPU would clock itself up to 2.7GHz on all cores... well, okay, it was a dual core, so that's not saying much, but still. But it'd only maintain that boost for a few seconds- under sustained load it dropped down to 2.5. This wasn't because of thermals, but rather because…

And to explain why they don't have, say, one core boost to 5.1GHz...well, let's see what siliconlottery says.

> As of 3/16/19, the top 38% of tested 9900Ks were able to hit 5.0GHz or greater.

> As of 3/16/19, the top 8% of tested 9900Ks were able to hit 5.1GHz or greater.

So, Intel'd cut their yield by more than a factor of four if they only let parts that could hit 5.1 into this bin. For a 2% single-core performance boost...

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#24

Post by dgacmu »

lawrenceyan wrote: post #20

Intel has fallen so far. It's honestly a shame to watch at this point. I remember back when Sandy Bridge was first released, and I was extremely pleased by the performance improvements my new chip was able to provide. Did they really manage to mess everything up within such a limited timespan? Or was there just always a hidden incompetence that never showed itself until now?

It's not Intel, it's the end of Moore's law. Intel's problem is that they are not well positioned to capitalize on the specialized processors that will be required to continue ekeing out advances for the next decade or two before we're entirely up a creek. :)

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#25

Post by jayflux »

lkschubert8 wrote: post #23

Should they be describing it as 8 cores 16 threads when there have been multiple security vulnerabilities that have to turn off hyperthreading to be mitigated?

What else would they describe it as? There are 8 cores and 16 threads, whether you have to turn off the hyperthreading feature or not is a different matter.

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#26

Post by jscott0918 »

dgacmu wrote: post #24
lawrenceyan wrote: post #20

Intel has fallen so far. It's honestly a shame to watch at this point. I remember back when Sandy Bridge was first released, and I was extremely pleased by the performance improvements my new chip was able to provide. Did they really manage to mess everything up within such a limited timespan? Or was there just always a hidden incompetence that never showed itself until now?

It's not Intel, it's the end of Moore's law. Intel's problem is that they are not well positioned to capitalize on the specialized processors that will be required to continue ekeing out advances for the next decade or two before we're entirely up a creek. :)

reddit.com/r/boneappletea

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#27

Post by hmottestad »

lkschubert8 wrote: post #23

Should they be describing it as 8 cores 16 threads when there have been multiple security vulnerabilities that have to turn off hyperthreading to be mitigated?

This is a very good point. I hope AMD brings it up with the EU. Might be a very slow process though, but at this point it is anticompetitive behaviour. AMD could probably squeeze a fair bit more performance out of their processors if they were allowed to cut some security corners.

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#28

Post by hmottestad »

jayflux wrote: post #25
lkschubert8 wrote: post #23

Should they be describing it as 8 cores 16 threads when there have been multiple security vulnerabilities that have to turn off hyperthreading to be mitigated?

What else would they describe it as? There are 8 cores and 16 threads, whether you have to turn off the hyperthreading feature or not is a different matter.

I think that if you turn off hyperthreading it becomes 8 core 8 threads.

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#29

Post by mackal »

gchamonlive wrote: post #5
shereadsthenews wrote: post #2

I don't get it. If it has an all-core frequency of 5GHz, doesn't that mean they've left some single-core boost on the table? Or have they hit some other limit and this part is basically free of thermal limits?

I believe Intel processors can't boost all cores. At least some tests I have done with my notebook processor (i7 8550u - 4c8t) with `stress -c n`, being n the number of processors, show that for n > 1 the processor doesn't reach 4ghz, only about 3.7ghz, while the package temps are still at around 70 °C. Only a single core on full load reaches 4ghz before throttling.

This is entirely configurable. They generally don't do all core == max boost for power consumption reasons (and I assume yield would be pretty low on chips that can do this)

Desktop chips also generally don't have any AVX offset, which is almost always required for 5 GHz all core.

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#30

Post by kzrdude »

adamparsons wrote: post #9
shereadsthenews wrote: post #2

I don't get it. If it has an all-core frequency of 5GHz, doesn't that mean they've left some single-core boost on the table? Or have they hit some other limit and this part is basically free of thermal limits?

I’d guess that the upper limit is stability rather than thermal capacity at that point

What does stability mean, a bit more exactly? Just curious
Post reply on HN